Islamic Cleric issues fatwa against dogs

Unlike many Americans, I view Islam not as some honorable religion, but as a 7th Century Arabic Imperialist Ideology. Wherever Islam goes it destroys the local culture and imposes Arabic morals on the people. In all honesty, Islam is evil and Totalitarian since it is a collectivist ideology that suppresses individualism. Before the rise of the Progressive Ideologies like Communism and Nazism, Islam was responsible for the majority of genocide committed in human history.

In the latest examresponsible ple of the the evil nature of Islam, an Iranian cleric has issued a fatwa against dogs. What most Americans don’t realize is that Islam is anti-dog, since Muslim legends claims they chased the Pedophile genocidal Arab warlord Muhammad and pissed in the first Mosque. Dogs sense evil and obviously they knew the founder of the Islamic Imperialist movement was demonic.

Issue on Islamic Government

Let me start with this article by asking which is better:  a government that allows individuals unrestricted freedom to do whatever they please and enjoy or to live under umbrella of government that imposes a strict law and order?  Which would be better:  to let teachers, business and private sector to choose their way of doing things or to pass laws that require them admit and serve everyone, regardless their race and sex?

For many of us, none of these options are appropriate as it pose a difficult scenario of choices. But the legitimate question can be what do we mean by a government? What is the purpose of government? Academically, according to Dahl, Robert (1989) government can be defined as the legitimate use of force –including imprisonment and execution- within territorial boundaries to control human behavior. All governments require citizens to surrender some freedom in the process of being governed.  By doing so, the citizens in return will enjoy benefits that governments gives them. 

The purposes of the governments are firstly, to maintain order and secondly to provide public goods and finally to promote equality.  In his focus on the life, the philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) saw the government as the essential mechanism for survival, he argued that without rules, people would live like predators, stealing and killing for personal benefits.  Other theorists, likes of John Lock believed that government must morally and legally protect the “unalienable rights “of individuals such as life, Liberty and Property. According to Lock if the government cannot protect and guarantee these fundamental rights, it loses its legitimacy and therefore, any upraising against it morally is justifiable. Indeed, Lock’s theory inspired many in America, Europe, Asia and Africa.

The government can pursue other ends when it is a position to handle the fundamental order. It can provide a public goods such as education, health, road buildings etc. these public goods are all in beneficial to all citizens. The another purpose of the government is to ensure and promote the equality principle between the individuals by redistributing income, and implementing justice to all in order to improve quality of the life for whole people.

Ideology and the scope of the Islamic Government

 People hold different opinions about governmental policies, based on their beliefs and values. However, Islamic ideology of governing incorporates activities in the Universe with those of Here After (Akhiro). Islamic conservative of thought relates to the government’s role in every sector of the society including education, business, labor, sports. This school of thought regulates every aspect of individual behavior through wide range of Islamic jurisdiction. The proponents of this camp base their argument on that only ALLAH is the creator, sustainer, and master of the universe and of all that exists in it. He alone has the right to command or forbid.  Hence, we must act according to ALLAH’s teaching, furthermore, Allah alone is the Ruler and his commandments are the laws that govern our daily activities politically, economically, and legally independence of human being.  Similarly,  they point at concept of prophethood(RISALAH) which states that Mohamed( PBUH) is the messenger of Allah and the authoritative interpreter of his BOOK(The Qur’an) and it is him- the Prophet -who give us a model for the Islamic way of life by implementing the law and providing necessary details where required. Also, conservative school of Islamic thought developed the concept of Khalifah as the only legitimate political body.  The Khilafah concept does not recognize the boundaries between nations as the boundaries of morality. Therefore, according to this camp in respect to the Khalifah principle, boundaries are arbitrary determinant to the answer of morality question.

Modernists school of  Islamic thought, in contrast contend that Islam does not ban every thing and that Islamic ideology can be divided into two possible distinctions; one distinction is that of static provision such as Prayer, Fasting, Zakah, and going to Makah for Hajj.  This type of Cibaada (worship) is straight and immune from human being thinking. They are explicitly mentioned in the Qur’an and Sunna and they remain unchangeable.  The other distinction is that type of dynamic provision which encompasses all other aspects of the life.  And although this school of thought acknowledges the fact that all our activities must be shaped in way that does not contradict with the origins of Qur’an and Sunna, nevertheless, they argue that Islam gave us ample room for decision making in respect to many issues, particularly, when it comes to restructuring of social order.

Most of that debate between the two camps, however, is mainly concentrated on the interpretations of the Qu’ranic verses and the narrated Hadiths from the Prophet (PBUH). To this point our discussion of jurisdictional ideology has centered on conflicting views about how islamically a government   can be pursued?

Profile of A Terrorist

"You can call me anything you like. Call me a monster or a murderer. Just note that I don't hate Arabs. On the contrary. Personally, I am much more at ease with them, and especially with the Bedouin, than with Jews. Those Arabs we haven't yet spoilt are proud people, they are irrational, cruel and generous. It's the Yids that are all twisted. In order to straighten them out you have to first bend them sharply the other way. That, in brief, is my whole ideology.

"Call Israel by any name you like, call it a Judeo-Nazi state as does Leibowitz. Why not? Better a live Judeo-Nazi than a dead saint. I don't care whether I am like Ghadafi. I am not after the admiration of the gentiles. I don't need their love. I don't need to be loved by Jews like you either. I have to live, and I intend to ensure that my children will live as well. With or without the blessing of the Pope and the other religious leaders from the New York Times. I will destroy anyone who will raise a hand against my children, I will destroy him and his children, with or without our famous purity of arms. I don't care if he is Christian, Muslim, Jewish or pagan. History teaches us that he who won't kill will be killed by others. That is an iron law.  

"Even if you'll prove to me by mathematical means that the present war in Lebanon is a dirty immoral war, I don't care. Moreover, even if you will prove to me that we have not achieved and will not achieve any of our aims in Lebanon, that we will neither create a friendly regime in Lebanon nor destroy the Syrians or even the PLO, even then I don't care. It was still worth it. Even if Galilee is shelled again by Katyushas in a year's time, I don't really care. We shall start another war, kill and destroy more and more, until they will have had enough. And do you know why it is all worth it? Because it seems that this war has made us more unpopular among the so-called civilised world.

"We'll hear no more of that nonsense about the unique Jewish morality, the moral lessons of the holocaust or about the Jews who were supposed to have emerged from the gas chambers pure and virtuous. No more of that. The destruction of Eyn Hilwe (and it's a pity we did not wipe out that hornet's nest completely!), the healthy bombardment of Beirut and that tiny massacre (can you call 500 Arabs a massacre?) in their camps which we should have committed with our own delicate hands rather than let the Phalangists do it, all these good deeds finally killed the bullshit talk about a unique people and of being a light upon the nations. No more uniqueness and no more sweetness and light. Good riddance."

"I personally don't want to be any better than Khomeini or Brezhnev or Ghadafi or Assad or Mrs. Thatcher, or even Harry Truman who killed half a million Japanese with two fine bombs. I only want to be smarter than they are, quicker and more efficient, not better or more beautiful than they are. Tell me, do the baddies of this world have a bad time? If anyone tries to touch them, the evil men cut his hands and legs off. They hunt and catch whatever they feel like eating. They don't suffer from indigestion and are not punished by Heaven. I want Israel to join that club. Maybe the world will then at last begin to fear me instead of feeling sorry for me. Maybe they will start to tremble, to fear my madness instead of admiring my nobility. Thank god for that. Let them tremble, let them call us a mad state. Let them understand that we are a wild country, dangerous to our surroundings, not normal, that we might go crazy if one of our children is murdered - just one! That we might go wild and burn all the oil fields in the Middle East! If anything would happen to your child, god forbid, you would talk like I do. Let them be aware in Washington, Moscow, Damascus and China that if one of our ambassadors is shot, or even a consul or the most junior embassy official, we might start World War Three just like that !"

......We are talking while sitting on the balcony of the pretty country house belonging to C. which is situated in a prosperous Moshav. To the west we see a burning sunset and there is a scent of fruit trees in the air. We are being served iced coffee in tall glasses. C. is about fifty years old. He is a man well known for his (military) actions. He is a strong, heavy figure wearing shorts but no shirt. His body is tanned a metallic bronze shade, the colour of a blond man living in the sun. He puts his hairy legs on the table and his hands on the chair. There is a scar on his neck. His eyes wander over his plantations. He spells out his ideology in a voice made hoarse by too much smoking:

"Let me tell me [sic] what is the most important thing, the sweetest fruit of the war in Lebanon: It is that now they don't just hate Israel. Thanks to us, they now also hate all those Feinschmecker Jews in Paris, London, New York, Frankfurt and Montreal, in all their holes. At last they hate all these nice Yids, who say they are different from us, that they are not Israeli thugs, that they are different Jews, clean and decent. Just like the assimilated Jew in Vienna and Berlin begged the anti-Semite not to confuse him with the screaming, stinking Ostjude, who had smuggled himself into that cultural environment out of the dirty ghettos of Ukraine and Poland. It won't help them, those clean Yids, just as it did not help them in Vienna and Berlin. Let them shout that they condemn Israel, that they are all right, that they did not want and don't want to hurt a fly, that they always prefer being slaughtered to fighting, that they have taken it upon themselves to teach the gentiles how to be good Christians by always turning the other cheek. It won't do them any good. Now they are getting it there because of us, and I am telling you, it is a pleasure to watch.

"They are the same Yids who persuaded the gentiles to capitulate to the bastards in Vietnam, to give it in to Khomeini, to Brezhnev, to feel sorry for Sheikh Yamani because of his tough childhood, to make love not war. Or rather, to do neither, and instead write a thesis on love and war. We are through with all that. The Yid has been rejected, not only did he crucify Jesus, but he also crucified Arafat in Sabra and Shatila. They are being identified with us and that's a good thing! Their cemeteries are being desecrated, their synagogues are set on fire, all their old nicknames are being revived, they are being expelled from the best clubs, people shoot into their ethnic restaurants murdering small children, forcing them to remove any sign showing them to be Jews, forcing them to move and change their profession.

"Soon their palaces will be smeared with the slogan: Yids, go to Palestine! And you know what? They will go to Palestine because they will have no other choice! All this is a bonus we received from the Lebanese war. Tell me, wasn't it worth it? "Soon we will hit on good times. The Jews will start arriving, the Israelis will stop emigrating and those who already emigrated will return. Those who had chosen assimilation will finally understand that it won't help them to try and be the conscience of the world. The 'conscience of the world' will have to understand through its arse what it could not get into its head. The gentiles have always felt sick of the Yids and their conscience, and now the Yids will have only one option: to come home, all of them, fast, to install thick steel doors, to build a strong fence, to have submachine guns positioned at every corner of their fence here and to fight like devils against anyone who dares to make a sound in this region. And if anyone even raises his hand against us we'll take away half his land and burn the other half, including the oil. We might use nuclear arms. We'll go on until he no longer feels like it...

"...You probably want to know whether I am not afraid of the masses of Yids coming here to escape anti-semitism smearing us with their olive oil until we go all soft like them. Listen, history is funny in that way, there is a dialectic here, irony. Who was it who expanded the state of Israel almost up the boundaries of the kingdom of King David? Who expanded the state until it covered the area from Mount Hermon to Raz Muhammad? Levi Eshkol. Of all people, it was that follower of Gordon, that softie, that old woman. Who, on the other hand, is about to push us back into the walls of the ghetto? Who gave up all of Sinai in order to retain a civilised image? Beitar's governor in Poland, that proud man Menahem Begin. So you can never tell. I only know one thing for sure: as long as you are fighting for your life all is permitted, even to drive out all the Arabs from the West Bank, everything.

"Leibowitz is right, we are Judeo-Nazis, and why not? Listen, a people that gave itself up to be slaughtered, a people that let soap to be made of its children and lamp shades from the skin of its women is a worse criminal than its murderers. Worse than the Nazis...If your nice civilised parents had come here in time instead of writing books about the love for humanity and singing Hear O Israel on the way to the gas chambers, now don't be shocked, if they instead had killed six million Arabs here or even one million, what would have happened? Sure, two or three nasty pages would have been written in the history books, we would have been called all sorts of names, but we could be here today as a people of 25 million!

"Even today I am willing to volunteer to do the dirty work for Israel, to kill as many Arabs as necessary, to deport them, to expel and burn them, to have everyone hate us, to pull the rug from underneath the feet of the Diaspora Jews, so that they will be forced to run to us crying. Even if it means blowing up one or two synagogues here and there, I don't care. And I don't mind if after the job is done you put me in front of a Nuremberg Trial and then jail me for life. Hang me if you want, as a war criminal. Then you can spruce up your Jewish conscience and enter the respectable club of civilised nations, nations that are large and healthy. What you lot don't understand is that the dirty work of Zionism is not finished yet, far from it. True, it could have been finished in 1948, but you interfered, you stopped it. And all this because of the Jewishness in your souls, because of your Diaspora mentality. For the Jews don't grasp things quickly. If you open your eyes and look around the world you will see that darkness is falling again. And we know what happens to a Jew who stays out in the dark. So I am glad that this small war in Lebanon frightened the Yids. Let them be afraid, let them suffer. They should hurry home before it gets really dark. So I am an anti-Semite ? Fine. So don't quote me, quote Lilienblum instead [an early Russian Zionist - ed.]. There is no need to quote an anti-Semite. Quote Lilienblum, and he is definitely not an anti-Semite, there is even a street in Tel Aviv named after him. (C. quotes from a small notebook that was lying on his table when I arrived:)

'Is all that is happening not a clear sign that our forefathers and ourselves...wanted and still want to be disgraced? That we enjoy living like gypsies.' That's Lilienblum. Not me. Believe me. I went through the Zionist literature, I can prove what I say.

"And you can write that I am disgrace to humanity, I don't mind, on the contrary. Let's make a deal: I will do all I can to expel the Arabs from here, I will do all I can to increase anti-semitism, and you will write poems and essays about the misery of the Arabs and be prepared to absorb the Yids I will force to flee to this country and teach them to be a light unto the gentiles. How about it ?"

It was there that I stopped C.'s monologue for a moment and expressed the thought passing through my mind, perhaps more for myself than for my host. Was it possible that Hitler had not only hurt the Jews but also poisoned their minds? Had that poison sunk in and was still active? But not even that idea could cause C. to protest or raise his voice. After all, he said to have never shouted under stress, even during the famous operations his name is associated with.  

Errata 18th April 2002

We picked up the interview and checked as far as possible that it was authentic; the interview was published in the Davar paper as stated, and we took the assurances of people who know Amos Oz, the journalist who conducted the interview, that the person identified as "C" was Ariel Sharon. There has since been a lively discussion that some of the descriptions of the interviewee do not fit with Sharon, even though the opinions mentioned match his thinking. Many journalists took the claim that it was Sharon at face value, as did for example the editor of Rocky Mountain News who just issued the following statement: 

CORRECTION: A MEA CULPA 

By Holger Jensen, Scripps Howard News Service, 4/15/02 

This is a mea culpa. I made a grievous error in not verifying the authenticity of 20-year-old quotes attributed to Ariel Sharon that I  used in my April 12 column on the Israeli leader. As it turns out, they were made not by Sharon but another unnamed Israeli soldier who died 11years ago. The interview in question was conducted by Amos Oz, one of Israel's leading authors and prominent in the Peace Now movement. He had access to many Israeli generals and politicians of that era but identified some of his interview subjects only by letters of the alphabet, leaving it up to his readers to decide who they were...

Struggle Against One’s Self or Holy War?

When most people hear the word jihad the first thing that comes to mind is Holy War by Muslims against all non-Muslims. Is this the actual meaning of jihad, or has this term been misused? How was jihad defined by Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)¹, the prophet of Islam? How has jihad been used by Muslims after the death of Muhammad (pbuh)? Has the media presented the Islamic or an alternative meaning of jihad to the public? Is jihad the struggle against one’s self or is it holy war? One fifth of the human population² has taken Islam as their way of life and it is very important that the real concept of jihad in Islam is presented in its truest form. Jihad means struggle and the greatest struggle is against the self.

      The term jihad is taken from the origin of the word from the Arabic verb "jahada" which means to struggle or fight. When discussed in an Islamic context it is mans struggle against nature, man and himself. Man struggles against nature to protect himself from the weather, disease, natural disasters, and from animals that may do him harm. This struggle against nature is not the same as it was 1400 years ago because of advances in technology. We have better housing, living conditions, climate control, vaccinations and technologies that warn us when there is the threat of inclement weather. With all these advances the struggle continues because there are new viruses, no absolute defense against natural disasters, and many people are still getting attacked by wild animals every year. The struggles against nature will always exist. Man throughout history has struggled against one another in matters of land, ideology, wealth and religion. Some of these struggles have been resolved peacefully like the United States and Russia did during the cold war or not so peacefully like the United States and Iraq during this present war.   Man’s struggle against man can be traced back Biblically to Cain verses Abel Genesis 4:8, “…So it came about that while they were in the field Cain proceeded to assault his brother and kill him”. This shows one person against another, and there are also wars where communities are against communities, and nations are against nations. This is nothing new and as long as men continue not to disagree agreeably this will continue to exist. Man verses himself is so universal that it effects all men in every society and in all times. There is never a time when man is not with himself. Man struggles constantly with his emotions, morality, mortality, sexuality, and religious beliefs. He struggles to do what’s right in his home in the work place and society at large. These struggles are inescapable. This is why the jihad of the self is called great because it has to be waged at all times and in all places.

      The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) like all prophets before him came to teach men how to be moral and upright. He was not an advocate of war nor did he take part in many. In her book "Muhammed," author Karen Armstrong writes:

Fighting and warfare might sometimes be necessary, but it was only a minor part of the whole jihad or struggle. A well-known tradition (hadith) has Muhammad saying on returning from a battle, ' We return from the little jihad to the greater jihad,' the more difficult and crucial effort to conquer the forces of evil in oneself and in one's own society in all the details of daily life.

Muhammad exhorted his companions to the worship of God alone and to self purification (jihad). While being oppressed in Mecca Muhammad never lifted a finger in his or his followers’ defense. “The opposition began with ridicule and harassment and rapidly accelerated into an economic boycott and a threat to his personal life (Dr. Bashir Datoo 49). Muhammad and his followers were constantly beaten, spat on and two of them Samayya and her husband Yasser were murdered. Their murders and the continued persecution of the early Muslims caused the first migration of the Muslims from Mecca to Abyssinia and a later migration to Yathrib later named Medina. In Medina the first Islamic state was established 623 AD. There were Jews and Christians and pagans living there among each other in peace. There neither was any holy war (jihad) used to establish the Islamic State of Medina nor was there any compulsion used in trying to convert the non-Muslims. In Islam God has said “There is no compulsion in religion,” (Holy Qur’an 2:256).   When Muhammad and his followers returned victoriously to Mecca not one drop of blood was shed, and all that were there were forgiven. If jihad “holy war” was to be waged against all non-Muslims all the pagans of Mecca and Jews and Christians in Medina would have been killed. Islamic historian Jafar Subhani writes in his book the Message,

Buoyed by the quickening pace of his revolution, the Prophet wrote letters and sent emissaries to neighboring rulers and heads of other religions to invite them to the fold of Islam. He set the stage for what unfolded, diffusion of Islam through vast areas of the Old World in the succeeding centuries. This was not achieved, as historians had previously alleged, by the force of the “sword,” rather, as they themselves now readily acknowledge, by the intrinsic “appeal” of the message itself. This appeal had to do with the emphasis that Islam laid on the moral and ethical development of a just and equitable society.

Muhammad led by example and his example was one of love, forgiveness and admonishing people to do good deeds and purify themselves through prayer, fasting and charity truly the great jihad.

      After the death of Prophet Muhammad, Islam continued to expand at an unprecedented rate. However the Muslims were divided after the Prophet’s death into two main groups the Sunnis and the Shiites. The divide came because one group the Sunnis believed that the Prophet never named a successor to follow him so one needed to be elected and the other “Shiites” believed that any successor to any Prophet had to be divinely chosen. This split did not lead to any wars directly following the death of the Prophet and the leaders that followed him were careful not to use compulsion in converting the people to Islam. This may seem contradictory and controversial in view of the state of Islam today in a place like Iraq where civil war between the Sunnis and Shiites is taking place. Some leaders from among the Islamic sects do see this type of fighting as Jihad, holy war, against other Muslims that don’t exactly believe the same way they do, they refer to them as Kufars “non-believers” and they feel like it is their duty to purify the Muslim ranks of these non-believers. These groups misinterpret passages and verses from the Qur’an and traditions to try to justify their actions. Craig Branch agrees when writes, “A small percentage of Muslims who are from the extreme, radical and violent wing of Islamic Fundamentalism, and who are "...passionate, [deeply] religious and anti-Western...” might dwell on passages or verses dealing with conflict, war, and resistance to oppression.” The majority of Muslims adhere to the advice that was given by Ali ibn Abi Taleb³ to his governor in Egypt, “Oh Malik always remember that if a man is not your brother in faith he is your brother in humanity” (Ordak 86). So despite the few renegades the majority of the Muslims view the greater jihad as, “the intimate struggle to purify one's soul of evil influences -- both subtle and overt. It is the struggle to cleanse one's spirit of sin” (Al-Hajj Talib 'Abdur-Rashid).

      In recent years Islam has come under attack in the media some justified some not. The biggest buzz words used by the media are Islamic Jihad, terrorism and fundamentalism. All have become terms that non-Muslims view as calls for all Muslims to unite against them. The majority of the conflicts that involves Muslims take place in the Middle East where there are mostly Arabs involved. This is ironic because the vast majority of Muslims are non-Arabs and according to Abdulrahman Al-Motrif, “Arabs only make up ten percent of the world wide population of Muslims”, and it seems like the call for holy war comes from that part of the world according to the media. Osama bin Laden is from Saudi Arabia and it has been reported that the majority of the hijackers in the 911 tragedy were also from Saudi Arabia. Some Muslims have begun to adopt the westernized view of jihad that has been reported from the Middle East by the media, that they should fight non-Muslims. This goes against the thinking of the majority of the Muslims and against what God says in the Qur’an, “Invite (all) to the Way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and reason with them in ways that are best and most gracious: for thy Lord knoweth best, who have strayed from His Path, and who receive guidance”. (H.Q. 16:125). It would be unfair to say that all media on Islam has been negative, many in the media have tried to explain the Islamic view of jihad most notably, PBS video "Muhammad: Legacy of a Prophet" (Dec. 18, 2002), The PBS video "Islam: Empire of Faith" (2001) and History Channel/A & E's (summer 2002) "Inside Islam". The media it seems has been reflective of society, some view Islam as a terrorist religion bent on ruling the world through holy war and others see the few renegades as derelicts misrepresenting what Islam and jihad are ultimately about. Although the overwhelming reports given by the media has shown jihad to mean holy war there are those that have championed jihad as the struggle against the self.

      The question still remains, is jihad the struggle against the self or holy war? The answer is, it is both.  Jihad means struggle and struggles exist internally and externally. Jihad of self on a personal level involves as stated by Al-Hajj Talib 'Abdur-Rashid:

Putting "Allah ahead of our loved ones, our wealth, our worldly ambitions and our own lives."

Resisting pressure of parents, peers and society; strive against "the rejecters of faith..." (Quran 25:52)

"...strive and struggle to live as true Muslims..."

"Striving for righteous deeds."

Spreading the message of Islam. "The (true) believers are only those who believe in Allah and his messenger and afterward doubt not, but strive with their wealth and their selves for the cause of Allah. Such are the truthful." (Quran, 49:15)

He further stated jihad has a verbal level:

To strive for justice through words and non-violent actions. Muhammad encouraged Muslims to demand justice in the name of Allah. When asked: "'What kind of jihad is better?' Muhammad replied, 'A word of truth in front of an oppressive ruler!'"  According to the Institute of Islamic Information and Education: "The life of the Prophet Muhammad was full of striving to gain the freedom to inform and convey the message of Islam. During his stay in Makkah [Mecca] he used non-violent methods and after the establishment of his government in Madinah [Medina], by the permission of Allah, he used armed struggle against his enemies whenever he found it inevitable."

He final says jihad has a physical level:

This relates to the use of physical force in defense of Muslims against oppression and transgression by the enemies of Allah, Islam and Muslims. Allah commands that Muslims lead peaceful lives and not transgress against anyone. If they are persecuted and oppressed, the Qur'an recommends that they migrate to a more peaceful and tolerant land: "Lo! Those who believe and those who emigrate (to escape persecution) and strive (Jahadu) in the way of Allah, these have hope of Allah's mercy..." (Quran, 2:218). If relocation is not possible, then Allah also requires Muslims to defend themselves against oppression by "fighting against those who fight against us." The Qur'an states: "To those against whom war is made, permission is given [to defend themselves], because they are wronged - and verily, Allah is Most Powerful to give them victory." (Quran 22:39)

The above references show that both views of jihad are used in Islam. It can also be said from the above references that violence is looked at as the final alternative to resolving issues. It shows that problems should be talked out and if that isn’t working that one should leave the place where the conflicts are taking place to avoid physical fighting. Then when all else has failed permission has been given to fight in order to protect oneself. Nowhere in the Qur’an or tradition of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is there to be found any passage that makes it okay for a Muslim to be aggressive against any other human being. The Qur’an urges Muslims to fight against the oppressions and transgressions from the enemies of Islam and it warns the Muslims not to transgress the limits of others, “And fight in the way of Allah those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits”. (Quran 2:190)

Ayatollah Aga Pooya in his commentary of this verse says:

. Islam promotes peace, order and harmony in the human society and keeps man on the right path. When the enemies of Islam found that the light of this message was sweeping darkness from every corner, the disbelievers vowed to annihilate it. It was only then that, no recourse being left for the believers, they had to resolutely take up the sword in defense. Verses 39 and 40 of al Hajj also give permission to fight when any people is wronged, oppressed and persecuted.

If Numbers 25: 1 to 3 and 31: 7 to 18 in the Old Testament are read carefully one comes to the conclusion that when the Israelites, in Shitim, began to worship the gods of Moab the Lord God asked Moses to "take all the leaders of the people and hurl them down to their death before the Lord."

And they made war on Midians as the Lord has commanded Moses, and slew all the men. The Israelites took captive the Madianite women and children, and carried off all their cattle, their flocks and their property. They burnt all their cities. Moses asked them to kill every male child and every women who has had intercourse with a man.

So in the way of Allah, the prophets were commanded to put an end to the activities of the disbelievers who wanted to destroy the true devotees of Allah in order to stop the advancement and progress of the religion of Allah. The Quran commands the Muslims not to exceed the limits but to fight evil until its power base is dislodged, and if the kafirs (non believers) desist then to show mercy.Compared to what the other prophets did, as commanded by Allah, to destroy the unbelievers, the role assigned to the Holy Prophet as the "mercy unto the worlds" was the most benign of all the campaigns undertaken by His messengers to liberate mankind from the clutches of the enemies of Allah. He fought and killed the enemy whenever war was imposed on him.

Here Pooya shows how other Prophets (pbut) killed their enemies and how Muhammad was told to desist killing the enemy if they stopped fighting.

      In conclusion Islam is growing about 2.9% per year which is faster than the total world population which increases at about 2.3% annually. It is thus attracting a progressively larger percentage of the world's population⁴. This is happening despite the overwhelming negative reports given by the media. According to aimpress.com, “6.4% of the world's population is converting to Moslem every year.” They aren’t converting to Moslem they are converting to Islam. The Middle East Media Research Institute reported that after 9/11, 34,000 Americans converted to Islam. In an article written in the New York Times October 2001 says, “One expert estimates that 25,000 people a year become Muslims in this country; some clerics say they have seen conversion rates quadruple since Sept. 11. With people entering the religion of Islam in such great numbers, reason must dictate that the Holy war that is being waged has to be one of the intellect and not of weapons. More people are asking about Islam and the answers they are finding are that Islam appeals to them and they are converting. Most people want peace and statistics show that more people are moving toward Islam which incidentally means peace. This shows that although jihad means Holy war more people believe that it is the struggle of each individual to please his maker. Again both views of jihad are present in Islam but as the Prophet Muhammad has said,” The best jihad [struggle] is (by) the one who strives against his own self for Allah, The Mighty and Majestic."